the item passes. supervisor mirkarimi: congratulations on the appointment, mr. goldberg and ms. shelby. next item, please. >> item #10. appropriate $2,955,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, for environmental analysis and preliminary engineering for the van ness avenue bus rapid transit (brt) project, subject to the attached cash flow distribution schedule, and amend the brt/transit preferential streets/muni metro network 5-year prioritization program, with a commitment to appropriate $574,000 in fiscal year 2010/11 prop k funds to complete this phase of work. supervisor campos: public comments on this particular item? supervisor mirkarimi: -- public comments on this particular item? >> k is extraordinary ♪

supervisor mirkarimi: seeing a more public comments, public comment is closed. without objection, motion proceeds. next item. >> item number 11. appropriate $1,647,515 in prop k funds, with conditions, for environmental analysis for the geary bus rapid transit (brt) project, subject to the attached cash flow distribution schedule, and amend the brt/transit preferential streets/muni metro network 5-year prioritization program. supervisor mirkarimi: discussion? public comment? take your time. >> like i told you before, the bus rapid transit project on van ness and the one on geary has been worked on since 1986.

it is all a matter of public record. there is a file a report for the corridor. it was also mentioned in the short range transit plans years ago. the only way to alleviate traffic congestion on geary boulevard is a light rail system. not a bus rapid transit system. go, do your homework before you have these projects go forward. thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. additional public comment? seeing no one, public comment is closed. same house? very good. without objection, motion prevails. next item. >> item number 12.

allocate $828,353 in prop k funds, with conditions, for seven requests, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules, and amend the relevant 5-year prioritization programs. supervisor mirkarimi: public comments on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. same house call? so moved. motion prevails. please call items 13 and 14. >> item number 13. approve the final report of the mobility, access and pricing study. item number 14. authorize the executive director to advance further study of congestion pricing options and to pursue funds for the authority to conduct environmental review and alternatives analysis for this purpose. supervisor mirkarimi: director, would you like to instigate? >> a quick introduction to clarify these actions. the first that we have is the simple approval of the final

report on a federally funded study that we have been doing for years on the concept of congestion pricing. the report before you was posted on our web site with a short power point presentation so that you could understand the full contents. this is simply a feasibility study. the action today is necessary for us to move closer to a federal grant and is also a way to memorialize the results of the feasibility analysis that was done by the transportation authority. this second item is an authorization for me to advance further study of the concept. including seeking additional federal funding for that purpose. it is not an authorization to

implement anything. essentially it is a conclusion of the first study from item 13. leading to eventual implementation in the timeframe we have analyzed not happening until at least 2015. we are talking about more analysis, discussion, and more of an opportunity to educate ourselves as tuesday issues in potential the implementation. i would like to invite a principal planner to make a quick presentation on the contents of the report. supervisor mirkarimi: welcome. >> thank you.

one of the first things that we want to share with you is that the definition of ingestion pricing, many people are aware of the seeds that moderates would pay including reinvestment and transportation improvements. as you can see here, there are many examples in the benefits that can be achieved through both to give an understanding about where it occurs the most in san francisco. looking forward we want to understand how it might impact the growth plans that we could expect from this particular presentation. looking at the sheer number of

buildings in this area, there is no silver bullet. obviously there is one strategy that we can analyze to which he plans and we will look at multiple strategies moving forward. when we look at the goals for the future, much of the development is focused downtown but we also want to look at how transportation investment and strategy can focus and strengthen our cities regional competitiveness, making it more livable and delivering as a way to combine managing demand and increasing revenue to make sure that efforts being made are efficient and lead to dole's. supervisor campos: supervisor alioto-pier, did you want to

speak or wait? very good. let the feasibility in the context of the city's goals, what are the scenarios that might be feasible? what range of improvements might be necessary on the next step that would need to be followed. we wanted to analyze steps that might be configured in this is more like the other complication fees in the city and region. the other aspect that we look that was how and when the team

might be charged. not like london, but more and peak periods. we do not have congestion for 10 to 12 hours per day. this would be a few dollars in each direction each weekday only during that time. we looked at disabled and low- income drivers, as well as the $6 daily capture. developed in response to feedback of parents from police children, prompted to take their kids to after school programs and in response to feedback on commercial transportation needs. we also look that a rebate for existing bridge tolls and a sweet program for businesses to help minimize the administrative burden, taking a look at fees over the course of a month.

in the context of the analysis we analyze dozens of those scenarios and found that one- third would perform the best. this scenario could deliver a 12%. reduction. a 15% reduction by and greenhouse gas emissions. 25% improvement in transit fees. when we look that the scenario we look at the range of improvements that could be delivered. looking at the funding, would it be sufficient? we split the potential revenue against a bonding with improvements to deliver this up

front. one of the major concerns heard in public feedback locally and regionally. people often ask what the next step is in addition to the northeast in the next phase. one thing that we look that was a more measured approach. rather than a permanent program, perhaps this is a candidate for a trial. looking at the northeast, this was an evening outbound only trips in response to businesses concerned about people coming in in the evening to meet friends for dinner and what have you and asking about a charge to get out of the city. this scenario could be a demonstration about that idea.

the other option we looked at with this southern gateway. the most congested areas would be looking at the most congested corridor. this would be looking at the program for three investments in the south bay corridor. these two ideas to demonstrate how the pricing of work and demonstrates the public feedback. comparison of the different scenarios, when we look at the northeast quadrant it delivers more and more to san francisco in the downtown area. looking at these pilot programs, they also have substantial benefits that should be analyzed.

just a quick review on out reach that has been conducted in addition to the multiple meetings in our most recent round we had public workshops and online town halls. we gave new social media tools for the people that could not participate in person. we have had a positive response on the use of those electronic and on-line tools. the feedback we have received, cut benefits as expected was the automatic ingestion that most

people see with a significant number of people seeing an improvement in fees because of of a program like this. throughout the most recent read about condition second problem for the types of goals we are trying to achieve, a consistent number of people disagree with its effectiveness. which is also recommended in this feedback and concerns are over affordability and economic impact. we have tried to design the program to look at the peak periods to transfer concerns that people head with an

environmental analysis, that authority needs to designate an agency that can manage and operate this program. no one agency can manage a responded improvement with program operators. we talked about the potential timeline of 2015 but only after additional study and out reach being made. finally, one of the questions that we asked about people's opinions on potential growth --

potential programs, for those that support there is some willingness to test the idea through a pilot. that has been the dominant response. again, there is a sizable portion of people concerned to prefer another solution. i will conclude by reiterating our first request, item number 13. to summarize the report indicates that congressional prices should contribute to our cities with further support appreciated for moving forward. as the director mentioned,

further funds for the analysis would not be needed, simply adoption of the technological process. supervisor mirkarimi: i believe that we have some questions. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. have we call items 13 and 14? or do you know the cost of the study? >> it depends on the scope of the study. we expect of the could -- with management categories that can

be applied to local matches depending on the scope. and while we might go out there to spend on something like this just to find that because of 26 it cannot be implemented without a huge majority willing to go along with this. i think that part of my concern here is getting answers to that before we decide and it is considering whether or not for this particular study with multiple plans if there is an impact.

it is anticipated that it will take several months in -- >> except we will be using potentially city funds to move forward. why not ask them to expedite their funding? >> i wanted to mention that we are investigating in seeking answers. but is still a dependence on the authorization that the state

level being characterized through state approval. it really would depend on how the state watches and draft legislation as to what might apply. commissioner alioto-pier: 1 not wait until we have answers to those questions? it might impact the study itself and what we look at an all sorts of different things. >> commissioner alioto-pier, the question as to whether it applies or not -- and there are varying opinions about that already -- does not really affect our ability to analyze the potential environmental impacts and other impacts or the selection of any kind of alternative. if it applies, it would require a vote that meets the threshold

of proposition 26. if it does not apply, obviously, it would be a simple majority. this is the kind of measure that has to be developed with a very broad consensus, not just in san francisco, but in neighboring counties that would be subject to this. i believe that doing some more analysis of this could even in form some of the debate happening in sacramento about the applicability. we can certainly wait, but it will not make a big difference in the sort of findings we are likely to make in the analysis. it is an externality that needs to be taken into account. a program that is weak will not really pass muster, and we are not interested in a week program. we are interested in a consensus program that will take a fairly long time to put together. that is why the idea of trying to move forward -- and let me clarify, this is not a staff

advocacy position. it is in favor of studying it and having an intelligent conversation of the region because we see condition pricing as one of the very last frontiers as far as where we are going to be able to tackle both the climate change issue in the transportation revenue issue in the face of big challenges, both at the state and federal levels as far as budget is concerned. commissioner alioto-pier: thank you for that. it does seem to me that proposition 26 could be a rather large externality, that it could have a large impact on the way san francisco moves forward and on the decisions we make. what we're dealing with right now, i realize it is a study, but it is a study, as has been mentioned, that could cost anywhere from $1 million to $2 million. it sounds like perhaps with some eight, at least that is

what we hope. if we're going to move forward at a time like this one resources are always going to be a little thin, what i'm curious about is why we simply would not wait -- honestly, there are a couple of different reasons. one is the fact that we could get more information regarding proposition 26 and how it could impact this, and the fact that four of us are leaving and we will have another commission here with four new commissioners in the next month, and this is the type of conversation in my opinion that should also be taking place with the full complement of the commission that we are looking at. any time that we are going to spend any money, even if it were a smaller amount, we should be looking at how we spend the authority's time, that we are spending it appropriately and smartly. proposition 26 is a concern to me.

i would not like to see the city spend a lot of money toward this. feasibility, when we turn around and realize it is something we cannot implement. maybe we think we could get it through at the higher margins. i do not know, but i do think they should be part of the conversation before we move forward and approve of continuing to study something that, frankly, might be moot. i do not know. >> a couple of clarifications -- the first one would be that the federal government is keenly interested in the petition pricing program, and it is curiously one of the few elements that have remained intact through the transition from the bush administration to the obama administration. in fact, there is heightened interest of precisely because of the debate that is happening in

congress. the fact that we cannot agree on a one-cent increase in the gas tax is generating the need for alternatives. this was the alternative that could work very well on a parallel of itself. i would also mention that because of leg work that was done, we did not get a super majority vote of 67%. i think that while i'm not supremely confident, i believe that the electorate is wise and when its seeds a separation of purpose, when its sees that the funds are dedicated 100% to transportation, when it understands the mechanism or the thinking behind it, it may very well choose to do something like that. the final thing is we are not talking about a position today or even when the new board is seated. we are talking about a decision on the merit in about five years.

what the framework would be at that point would have been vetted with all due death and concluded in some fashion or another. i think that we can wait. what it will do is put us closer to the deadline to apply for federal funds, which would make competing for the money more difficult. that deadline is counted i just a couple of months. i do not know that the new board will have considerably more information than what you have today to move forward. >> -- commissioner alioto-pier: it is not about whether or not we have the proper information. i feel confident that the people sitting around these desks right now can do a fine job in their vote in moving it forward.

let me ask you this -- i'm curious. this is a regional issue. we have a number of counties, san mateo probably being the closest one. no water separating us. there was a lot of conversation about the different interest groups. i believe there was a list of. i scanned it very briefly. what kind of outreach, what have we been doing with our neighboring counties regarding san francisco's congestion pricing ideas, particularly san francisco. i think people forget where san francisco and san mateo begin and end. it sometimes feels like we are closer sisters with them than anyone. also, alameda and marin county, not quite as directly impacted perhaps.

>> commissioner, i am a student of history, and i cannot help but remember that once we were all parts of the same county. it is the same people and the same lifestyle, and what we have is an imperative to have a wide-ranging conversation, which is why we are advocating for the necessary time to do that. we have done outreach meetings in san mateo county and sarah plant county and marin county, precisely for the purpose that you mentioned. we have also done webinars and the newfangled technology things, and i have to give credit for the staff because i would not be able to do that if you pressed me.

as you know, we can do a 30-year plan and have all-day meetings here and people do not pay a huge amount of attention until you have a specific proposal to do a project. that is the challenge planning has all the time, and that is why we believe the education process is very important. to have that discussion, mutually educate each other, and get to the point several years down the line when there is a more robust body of information that can inform and actual decision. what i can tell you is that we have received three letters that are included in the record. one is the letter from the university of california supporting the continuation of the analysis. one is from the bay area air quality management district strongly urging the analysis, and we also have a letter from the san mateo county government, and i know my counterparte